Versions of Imitation in the Renaissance Author(s): G. W. Pigman III Source: Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 33, No.

1 (Spring, 1980), pp. 1-32 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Renaissance Society of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2861533 . Accessed: 26/09/2011 14:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Renaissance Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Renaissance Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY
Edited by BRIDGET GELLERT LYONS & EDWARD AssociateEditors s. F. JOHNSON
MARGARET L. RANALD ROBERT E. TAYLOR

P. MAHONEY

C. WILLIAM MILLER

Versionsof Imitation in the Renaissance

by G.
W. PIGMAN

III

of FROMPetrarch'ssonnets to Milton's epics a major characteristic Renaissance literature is the imitation of earlier texts, and the Renaissancecontains a vast and perplexing array of writings on the theory and practice of imitation.' Although these writings often exhaust themselvesin vindictive and ferocious ad hominempolemics1 The most thorough discussion of imitation is Hermann Gmelin, "Das Prinzip Forschunder Imitatio in den romanischenLiteraturender Renaissance,"Romanische belloapudrecentiores 46 (1932), 83-360. See also CharlesLenient, De Ciceroniano gen, e (Paris,1855), Remigio Sabbadini,Storiadel ciceronianismo di altrequestioniletterarie vom VI. nell'etadellarinascenza(Torino, 1885), EduardNorden, Die antikeKunstprosa v. 773-781, John Jahrhundert Chr. bis in die Zeit derRenaissance (Darmstadt,1958), pp. Edwin Sandys, Harvard Lectureson the Revival of Learning (Cambridge, 1905), although his chapter, "The History of Ciceronianism," pp. 145-173, is largely dependent on Sabbadini,Richard McKeon, "LiteraryCriticism and the Conception of Imitation in Antiquity," ModernPhilology, 34 (1936), 1-35, Ferruccio Ulivi, L'imitazionenella poeticadel rinascimento (Milano, 1959), Cesare Vasoli, "L'estetica di dell'Umanesimoe del Rinascimento,"in Momentie problemi storiadell'estetica, parte S. Struever, The Language prima (Milano, 1959), esp. pp. 345-354, 380-383, Nancy in Humanand Rhetoric HistoricalConsciousness Florentine of Historyin theRenaissance: ism (Princeton, 1970), pp. 147 ff.; Elaine Fantham, "Imitation and Evolution: The Discussion of Rhetorical Imitation in Cicero De oratore 2.87-97 and Some Related Problemsof CiceronianTheory" and "Imitationand Decline: Rhetorical Theory and Practice in the First Century After Christ," Classical Philology, 73 (1978), 1-16, 102-II6. The best discussion of the interaction between the theory and practice of imitation and of the type of reading which imitative literature requires is Thomas Rootsand M. Greene,"Petrarchand the Humanist Hermeneutic,"in ItalianLiterature: Branches,ed. Giose Rimanelli and Kenneth John Atchity (New Haven, 1976), pp. I am greatly indebted to Greene's work on imitation. 201-224. [ 1]

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

one need only recallJulius CaesarScaliger'sOrationes againstErasmus -and dwell at length on what now appearsto many a sterile and fruitless debateover whether or not Cicero should be the only model for Latin prose, these treatises on imitation can offer considerable guidance for the interpretationof Renaissanceliterature.The theories of imitation help structureone's expectationsas to the types of relations between text and model which one is likely to find, although they also amount to a strong warning againstthe difficultiesof discovering and analyzing these relations. Once one turns to writings on imitation, one is immediately struck by a bewildering variety of positions. Besides constant reference to imitatio,some treatisesappearto have little else in common. Erasmus, Ramus, andJohannesThomas Freigius, for example, all wrote works entitled Ciceronianus; could hardlydiffermore. Erasmus' dialogue they caricaturesextreme Ciceronianism,contains important reflections on imitation and historicalchange, and concludeswith a catalogue which assessesthe styles of numerous Latin authors from Cicero's day to Erasmus'.Ramus briefly discussesimitation in a manner similar to Erasmus',but the bulk of his work treats the imitation of Cicero's entire careeras the surestway to become vir bonusdicendi peritusand emphasizescharacterformation. Freigius'work is devoted to inventio, the discovery and classificationof commonplaces. Writers discussimitation from so many differentpoints of view: as a path to the sublime ("Longinus"),as a reinforcementof one's natural inclinations (Poliziano) or a substitute for undesirable inclinations (Cortesi), as a method for enriching one's writing with stylistic gems (Vida), as the surestor only way to learnLatin (Delminio), as providing the competitive stimulus necessaryfor achievement (Calcagnini), and as a means of "illustrating"a vulgar language (Du Bellay). I do not intend this list to limit an author to only one position, nor does it exhaustall the positions taken during antiquity and the Renaissance. And I have intentionallyexcluded discussions literaryrepresentation of from Plato and Aristotle, although they also go by the name deriving of imitation and even though this more philosophical tradition often mingles with the rhetorical theories about models, as in the cases of Phoebammon and GiovanfrancescoPico della Mirandola. Consequently the common distinction between philosophical and rhetorical imitation is somewhat misleading because it obscures the distinctionsamong the varieties of rhetoricalimitation.2Occasionally

IMITATION

IN THE RENAISSANCE

theorists appear to recognize distinct moments or versions of imitatio, but to my knowledge only Bartolomeo Ricci, in his De imitatione,first published in 1541, writes as if there were accepted divisions of the genus imitatio into species. Ricci is about to discuss at length Virgil's emulation, in his treatment of Dido, of Catullus' Ariadne, but prefaces his remarks with the request that no one accuse him of ignorance because I attribute to imitation that which belongs to emulation. For although following, imitation, and emulating are three entirely different species,they are similar and do belong to one class.3 Despite this gesture towards a tripartite imitatio-sequi, imitari, aemulari -Ricci makes no effort to use the concepts precisely; one often feels the choice of a term is dictated only by elegant variation. Even though no other Renaissance theorist explicitly discusses species of imitation, one can identify Ricci's three species by studying the imagery, analogies, and metaphors of writings on imitation. The distinctions are most accessible in the metaphoric contrasts and comparisons which a theorist adopts to illustrate his position. Very often Ricci's three classes collapse into two, an opposition between imitation and emulation, in which case imitating and following are not distinguished. Thus the two major categories of imitation are imitation (imitatio) and emulation (aemulatio).4 These analogies, images, and metaphors fall into three general classes, which I shall call transformative, dissimulative, and eristic. These classes do not strictly correlate with the three types of imitation. The transformative class includes apian, digestive, filial, and simian metaphors. Bees illustrate not only transformative imitation, but nontransformative following, gathering, or borrowing. Digestion and the resemblance of father to son represent successful transformations of a
See, for example, A.J. Smith, "Theory and Practicein RenaissancePoetry: Two Kinds of Imitation," Bulletin of theJohn Rylands Library,47 (1964), 212-243. 3 De imitationilibri tres (Venice, 1545), p. 43v. Unless otherwise indicated all translationsare my own. 4 The boundariesbetween the types of imitation are fluid in some theorists, and in practice it is often difficult to distinguish precisely imitation from emulation or following. Consequently I use imitationto designate both the larger class and one member of it. I fear that greater terminological precision, although perhaps more convenient, would result in too rigid a system of classification.
2

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

Eristic metaphors-I borrow the term from "Longinus'"description of Plato'swrestling with Homer and citation of Hesiod'sagatheerisoften support a doctrine which contradictsthe advice of effacement: an open struggle with the model for preeminence,a struggle in which the model must be recognized to assure the text's victory. Besides images of struggle, strife, and competition, the eristic class includes a large group of analogiesconnectedwith overtakingand passingpeople on roadsor paths,in particularfootsteps and leaders.Eristicmetaphors between justify the interpreter'sattempt to understandresemblances texts as allusions,suggestthat a text may criticizeand correctits model, and reveal a persistentambivalencein emulation (which may also be called eristic imitation): admirationfor a model joined with envy and contentiousness.5 the Becauseof the work of Gmelin and von Stackelberg6 apianmetaphor (Bienengleichnis)is probably the most familiarof all the images in writings on imitation. More importantly, the apian metaphor is perhapsthe most misleading topos because it is used to present two opposedconceptionsof imitation:the poet as collector (following) and the poet as maker (imitation or emulation).The apianmetaphoris not The digressioninto naturalhistory in Seneca's always transformative. morales a centraltext for all later discussionsof imitation, Epistulae 84, is essential.Senecasays that investigatorsare not positive whether the bees collect honey from flowers or changewhat they gatherinto honey by some processof their own. Their skill may lie in gathering,not in making. However, once Seneca strengthenshis advice to imitate the
5 Compare the fine discussion of the tension between Du Bellay's reverence for the ancients and his impulse towards iconoclasm in Margaret W. Ferguson, "The Exile's Defense: Du Bellay's La Defenceet illustration la languefranfoyse," de PMLA,

failures transformation. of model;the apeandalso the crow represent refer to Dissimulative and explicit adviceof dissimulation imagery or disguisingthe relationbetweentext and model. The concealing for doctrines conveyedby thesetwo classes poseserious problems the because imitations allusions, and who triesto understand interpreter of betweentext and model. advisethe effacement resemblance they

93 (1978), 275-289.
6

Jiirgen v. Stackelberg, "Das Bienengleichnis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der

literarischen Imitatio," Romanische Forschungen, 68 (1956), 271-293.

IMITATION

IN THE RENAISSANCE

bees with another image of transformation, digestion, one realizes that he is arguing for transformative imitation, not merely eclectic gathering. The bees convert flowers into honey by a process, for my purposes and I suspect Seneca's in this letter, similar to digestion in men. Macrobius appears to be the first author to assume that the crucial point of Seneca's apian metaphor is not the bees' ability to transform pollen into honey, but their collecting pollen from different flowers. Since Petrarch, it has been customary to criticize the discrepancy between the theory and practice of imitation in Macrobius, who certainly does excerpt large portions of Seneca's letter without acknowledgment or substantial transformation.7 For Macrobius, however, imitation does not imply avoiding verbal repetition, a cardinal position in Petrarch and other later authors, but a rearranging of previous material.8 Despite his adoption of Seneca's apian and digestive metaphors in language that insists on making something new and different, Macrobius is more concerned with reducing a mass of material into a useful order. And I have not gathered things worth rememberinginto a confused heap. Rather, a variety of matters from different authors and times has been arranged,as it were, into a body so that what I had noted indiscriminately The does 7 Nevertheless Macrobius change whathe findsin Seneca. mostrevealing additions are quoted in the text, but are not the only ones. The comparison at Sat. I.pr.8 does not come from Seneca. Macrobius also omits large portions of Seneca'sletter: the digressionon naturalhistory, the contrastbetween father/son and man/imago, the "magni vir ingenii" who impresseshis own form on what he draws from others. The omission of the "magni vir ingenii" may be due to Macrobius' modesty (cf. his own concern over his ability to write good Latin, sections IIff.), but it might reflecthis shift of emphasisfrom transformation orderly management: to he does not want his materialto be unrecognized, as Senecaassertscan happen. Also, the resemblanceof father to son is irrelevant to Macrobius' redisposition. Consecriticismis not entirelyjust: "non enim floresapud Senecamlectos quently, Petrarch's in favos vertere studuit, sed integros et quales in alienis ramis invenerat, protulit" (Le Familiari,ed. Vittorio Rossi and Umberto Bosco [Florence, 1933-42], I.8.3-4). Cf. Erasmus'criticism of Macrobius'centones, Ciceroniano, Angiolo Gambara II ed.
(Brescia, I965), p. 204.
8 Macrobiusexcuses his reproductionof others' words as follows: "nec mihi vitio vertas, si res quas ex lectione varia mutuabor ipsis saepe verbis quibus ab ipsis auctoribus enarrataesunt explicabo; quia praesens opus non eloquentiae ostentationem, sed noscendorum congeriem pollicetur" (I.pr.4). Borrowing and its unscrupulous cousin, theft, like culling flowers, are frequent images of nontransformativeimitation or following.

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

and without distinctionas an aid to memory would coherentlycome together into an orderly arrangement[in ordinem]like parts of the body. (I.pr.3) Seneca's digestive analogy supports an imitation which completely transforms the model to produce something with its own identity. Macrobius inserts Seneca's analogy into his preface with only insignificant variations until he reaches "lest it belong to someone else," where he makes an addition which reverses Seneca's position: We should produce the same effect with things that nourish the mind. We should not allow what we have consumed to stay intact, lest it belong to someone else; insteadit should be digested into some sort of arrangement[in quandam digeriemconcoquantur]. (I.pr.7) Despite the ambiguity of digeries, I think Macrobius is using it as Lewis and Short define it, citing this passage, "an orderly distribution, a disposition, arrangement"; in digeriem is synonymous with in ordinem. Macrobius is concerned with organization, not with transformation; he adds in ordinemto another passage he reworks from Seneca: "I too will entrust whatever I have sought in my diverse reading to my pen so that under its direction my reading may coalesce into an orderly arrangement [in ordinem]." This coalescing is not the transformation of pollen into honey, in which the pollen loses its identity and becomes something else, but the redisposition of individual excerpts in an organized collection, aflorilegium. Macrobius conceives of imitation as a type of redistributive reproduction; for him making something different means setting it in a new context. Macrobius offers an unusually complex example of the confusion of two opposed types of imitation inherent in the apian metaphor. Ordinarily one finds the flower-gathering and honey-making moments of imitation in different contexts. Poliziano's quotation of Lucretius offers two nontransformative uses of the apian metaphor: Since it is a very great fault to intend to imitate only one person, we shall not errif we place before us as models Quintilian and Statiusas well as Cicero and Virgil, if we take from everywhere what we can use, as in Lucretius, "just as the bees taste everything in the flowering pastures,we likewise feed on all Epicurus' golden sayings."9
9 "Oratio super Fabio Quintiliano et Statii Sylvis," in Prosatorilatini del Quated. trocento, Eugenio Garin (Milan and Naples, I952), p. 878. The lines from Lucretius are 3.II-I2.

IMITATION

IN THE RENAISSANCE

In theproemto his thirdbook Lucretius' simileasserts dependence his on Epicurus refuses and aemulatio. Lucretius himselfasgatherpictures not father, as modifyingwhathe reads. ing wisdomfromhis spiritual fromall of Epicurus the point of the compariis Collectingdoctrine son. In this passage is Poliziano,strictlyspeaking, only utilizingthe of gathering from everywhere, he aspect althoughelsewhere disapof imitationwithoutemulation insists, digestivemetaand proves by imitation.10 Here, however, his primary phor, on transformative and concern to justifyhis choiceof Quintilian Statius worthyof is as inferiorto CiceroandVirgil.Polizianois arguing for studyalthough eclecticimitation,the studyand use of all good authors.1 One neednot dwell on the transformative of application the apian sincevon Stachelberg so One can metaphor provides manyexamples. sumit up with one sentence fromPetrarch: "Takecarethatwhatyou in havegathered doesnot long remain its originalforminsideof you: if thebeeswouldnot be glorious theydidnot convert whattheyfound into somethingdifferentand somethingbetter"(Fam. 1.8.23). The on is what'sgathered mustbecome emphasis transformationcomplete; different. something In Senecathe apiananddigestivemetaphors reinforce another one are closelyanalogous. digestivemetaphor just as long a and The has historyas the apian,but, with the exceptionof Cortesi,who usesit as an argument from eatingtoo many eclecticism against (indigestion different foodsat thesametime)12 it is alwaysusedto support transfor10 See the letter to Cortesi, Prosatori, pp. 902-904. 1 I list a few more instancesof apian metaphors in nontransformativecontexts to show their general diffusion in the Renaissance,since the reader of von Stachelreceives the impression that only medieval berg's collection of Bienengleichnisse authorsuse them to supportadvice to gathermaterialfrom a wide variety of sources. GiovambattistaGiraldi Cinzio, "Super imitatione epistula," in Trattatidi poeticae retorica Cinquecento, BernardWeinberg (Bari, 1970-74), vol. I, pp. I99-200, del ed. cites the metaphoras a typical argumentfor eclectic imitation againstCiceronianism. Ronsard usesthe metaphorat least four times in connection with gathering.The most revealing case is "Sonnet, a M. des Caurres,sur son livre de Miscellanees,"in which Ronsard praises the compiler of a florilegium; see Oeuvres completes,ed. Gustave Cohen (Paris,1950), vol. 2, pp. 942-943. The other instances may be found, vol. 2, pp. 390-391, 614, 862 (I owe these referencesto GrahameCastor, PleiadePoetics: A Studyin SixteenthCenturyThoughtand Terminology [Cambridge,1964], p. 72). See also Petrus Ramus, Ciceronianus(Paris, 1557), p. I8, and M. Antonius Muretus, Lectionumlibri viii (Venice, I559), book 8, chap. I. Variarum 12 See the letter to Poliziano, Prosatori,p. 9I0.

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

mative imitation. After Seneca, one finds it in Quintilian, Macrobius, Petrarch, Poliziano, Erasmus, Calcagnini, Dolet, Florido, Du Bellay, Sidney, and Jonson.13 I quote one of Erasmus' versions of the topos as
representative:

I approve an imitation that is not limited to one model from whose features one does not dare to depart, an imitation which excerpts from all authors, or at any rate from the most eminent, what is excellent in each and most suits one's intellect, and which does not at once fasten to a discourse whatever beauty it lights upon, but which transferswhat it finds into the mind itself, as into the stomach, so that transfusedinto the veins it appearsto be a birth

13

Quintilian Io.I.I9;

Macrobius, Sat. I.pr.7; Petrarch, Fam. 22.2.12,

Seniles 2.3;

Poliziano, Prosatori, p. 904; Erasmuspp. 176, 178, 290 (quoted below), 300; Celio 1.213; Etienne Dolet, De ImitaCalcagnini, "Superimitatione commentatio,"Trattati d'EtienneDolet in sive Ciceronianus tione Ciceroniana, Emile V. Telle, L'Erasmianus lectionum (1535)(Geneva, 1974), pp. i8, 63, 76, 91; FrancescoFlorido, Succisivarum libri tres (Basel, 1539), p. 126; Du Bellay, La Deffence et illustrationde la langue francoyse,ed. Henri Chamard (Paris, 1970), p. 42; Sidney, An ApologieforPoetrie,in
Elizabethan Critical Essays, ed. G. Gregory Smith (Oxford, 1904), vol. I, p. 203;

"Timber,"BenJonson,ed. C. H. Herford, Percy and Evelyn Simpson,vol. 8 (Oxford, 1947), p. 638. In order not to burden the text unnecessarilyI will here list some examples of the monkey and crow metaphors,which always (with the exception of Villani, who calls Salutati "scimmiadi Cicerone" as a compliment) are used pejoratively to indicate particularly slavish, nontransformativeimitation. For the ape see Horace, Sat. I.IO.I8; Seneca the Elder, Contr. 9.3. 12-13; the three ancient and Literature numerous medieval uses of simia cited by Ernst Robert Curtius, European
and the Latin Middle Ages, tr. Willard R. Trask (Princeton, 1953), pp. 538-540; Fillipo

Villani, Le vite d'uominiillustrifiorentini,cited by Gambaro, Ciceroniano, xxxii; p.

Petrarch, Fam. 23.19.13; Poliziano, Prosatori, p. 902; Cortesi, Prosatori, p. 906 and "De

hominibus doctis dialogus," in Philippi Villani Liber de civitatisFlorentiae famosis civibus,ed. Gustavus Camillus Galetti (Florence, 1847), p. 234; Pico, Le epistole"De Pico della Mirandolae di Pietro Bembo, ed. Giorgio imitatione"di Giovanfrancesco Santangelo (Florence, 1954), pp. 29, 63, 70, 71; Erasmus, with whom simius is a favorite term of mockery, pp. 86, ioo, io8, ii8, 136, etc.; Sperone Speroni, Opere
(Venice, 1740), vol. 2, p. 365 (joined with a crow comparison); Du Bellay, p. 107;

ed. Gabriel Harvey, Ciceronianus, Harold S. Wilson (Lincoln, 1945), p. 80, alluding to Erasmus,p. oo00. Horace,Epis. 1.3.19, reworks the Aesopian fable of the crow and the stolen plumage to dissuadeCelsus from plundering the Palatine library for his becomes a commonplace:Petrarch,Fam. 22.2.17; writings. After Horace, the cornicula Pico, p. 34; Erasmus,p. 204; Calcagnini, Trattati 1.216; Speroni 2.365; Ricci, p. 75; oratoria(Strassbourg,1574), schola to book 3, chap. I; Johann Sturm, De imitatione Harvey, p. 4 (perhapsalluding to Ricci).

IMITATION

IN THE RENAISSANCE

of one'sintellect,not something fromelsewhere, and beggedandborrowed breathes forththe vigor anddisposition one'smindandnature, thatthe of so reader does not recognizean insertion takenfrom Cicero,but a childborn from one'sbrain, as they say Pallaswas born fromJupiter's, just bearinga of its parent,and also so that one'sdiscourse does not appear lively image to be somesortof centoor mosaic, an imagebreathing but forthone'smind or a river flowing from the fountainof one'sheart.14 Although certain elements of this long sentence are peculiar to Erasmus' conception of imitation, one can justly call it a representative instanceof the digestive topos for severalreasons.First,the metaphors which theoristsof imitation use do not appearas incidentalornaments; they usually carrythe burdenof what the theoristhas to say and come at the crucial moments of his argument. In this passageBulephorus, after having ridiculed extreme Ciceronianismand having argued for eclecticism,is statinghis own conception of imitation. All of Erasmus' major concerns appearhere with the exception of the fear that Ciceronianismis a disguise for paganism,and even this is implicit in the referenceto decorum ("suitsone's intellect"), for as I argue elsewhere, historical decorum, which forbids the use of exclusively pagan terms in Christian contexts, because the terms are inappropriate to the changed historical conditions, is the central concept of the Ciceronianus.15This sentence also states a preference for eclectic rather than Ciceronian imitation and reveals Erasmus'insistence,unusualin treatises on imitation, on sincereexpressionof the author'spersonalityas an essential of good writing. The passage is also typical-one need only think of Seneca'sEpistulaemorales84-of the way in which imitative metaphorscome in clusters.Besides the digestive metaphor one finds referencesto mosaics and begging, and a child/parent comparison,all traditional,although Erasmususes the filial image, unlike Seneca,Petrarch,and Cortesi.16 Finally, Erasmusthoroughly emphasizes transformation through digestion; a readerwill not even recognize Cicero as model.
Ciceroniano, 290. The representativenature of this passageis highlighted by p. the fact that it is one of the very few passagesof which Dolet, in his attack on Erasmus (p. 91), approves. 15 See my "Imitation and the Renaissance Sense of the Past: The Reception of Erasmus' Ciceronianus," Journal of Medievaland RenaissanceStudies, 9 (1979), The
I55-I77. 16 Seneca, Ep. 14

mor. 84. 8; Petrarch, Fam. 23.I9.II; Cortesi, Prosatori,pp. 906 Erasmus,p. 298), 908. Pico criticizes Cortesi's comparison, p. 63. (quoted by

10

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

With the reader's lack of recognition a new class of imitative imagery and doctrine appears:dissimulation.Theorists often regard transformation the meansto the end of dissimulation, as Erasmus as just does in this sentence.In a certainsensethis advice is nothing more than an extension of the adagearsestcelare artem imitation, as in Erasmus: to Did not Cicero himself teach that the chief point of art is to disguise if art? we [dissimulare] ... Therefore we wishto imitateCicerosuccessfully, must above all disguiseour imitationof Cicero. (p. 84) Since scholarshave not paid much attention to the persistentadvice to disguise the relationshipbetween text and model, I would like to give an idea of the extent of dissimulativeadvice and imagery before proceeding to their consequencesfor a readerof imitative literature. Practicallyall of the important doctrinesand metaphorsof imitation appear in Seneca'sEpistulaemorales84, so it should offer no surprise that he counselsdissimulation:"Let our mind hide [abscondat] those all things which have aided it and reveal only what it has produced" (7). This exhortation, which Macrobiustakes so literally that he transfers without it, along with other chunksof Seneca'sletter, to his Saturnalia hint that he is using Seneca, appearsjust after the apian and any digestive metaphors: Seneca is the first to link transformationand dissimulation. Petrarch, while developing Seneca's comparison of the proper of similaritybetween text and model to the resemblance fatherto son, also dwells on dissimulation.He is writing to Boccaccio about the difficulty of avoiding unconscious verbal reminiscence and casting himself as father to Giovanni Malpaghini, his young secretary,who often insertsVirgilian phrasesinto his own poems. In this case the son turnsout to be only too like his father;Giovanni producesa line from Petrarch's own Bucolicum Carmenas a justification for lifting a phrase from Virgil. Petrarch's his unconsciousreminiscencefrustrates attempt to conceal his models and leads him to reflect on the gap between intention and performance. Nevertheless the dissimulative advice is fundamental: He will strengthen, hope,his mindandstyle andwill produceone thing, I his veryown, out of manythings,andhe will, I will not sayflee,but conceal the similar no one andwill seem to [celabit] imitationso thathe will appear to have brought,from the old, something new to Latium[Latiointulisse].
(Fam. 23.I9.1o )

IMITATION

IN THE RENAISSANCE

11

Again one notices the combination of concealing and transforming: making something new from a variety of sourcesand then disguising the process that has produced it. Petrarchis following this advice, for his sentenceconcealsan allusion to a famous line of Horace:"Captured Greece captured the wild victor and brought arts to rustic Latium [intulitagrestiLatio]" (Epist. 2.1.156-157). A few lines later Petrarch restateshis position on dissimulation: We mustprovidethatalthough is muchis dissimilar, and something similar, that the similarityitself lie hidden [lateat], that it cannotbe perceived so of to exceptby the silentsearching the mind, thatit can be understood be similarratherthansaid to be so. The exception of "the silent searchingof the mind" allows for partial dissimulation.The relation between text and model is not necessarily to be obliterated or completely disguised;the possibility of alluding in order to be recognized is left open. Petrarch'slast-quoted pronouncement on dissimulation stops just short of positing differentresponsesby differentaudiences.Some later theoriststake this step.Landinodefinesthe purposeof imitation as "not to be the sameas the ones we imitate, but to be similarto them in such a way that the similarity is scarcely recognized except by the learned."17 Sturmstatesthis imitation for the learneddoctrinesuccinctly: "Imitation lies hidden [latet];it does not stand out. It conceals ratherthan reveals itself and does not wish to be recognized [occultat]
except by a learned man."18.
II

What can these transformative dissimulativemetaphorstell someand one who is trying to understand imitative poem?What help do they an offer a readerwho confronts, for example, a passagein a Renaissance
17 Because of the inaccuracies of the printed editions of the Disputationes Camal-

I dulenses translatefrom the manuscript,written by Pietro Cennini in 1474, preserved in the LaurentianLibrary (Plut. 53.28). This passage appearsf. 197v.
18 De imitatione oratoria 2.3. Of all the theorists of imitation Sturm is the most

insistent on dissimulation, which finds a place in his theory from his earliest days (see Nobilitas Literata[1538; ed. Philip Miiller, Jena, 1680], p. 69). By the time of
his major work on imitation, De imitatione oratoria (1574), he has elaborated a sixfold

scheme for dissimilation which he calls "occultationis partes" (book 3, chap. I). Bernardino Parthenio, Della imitatione poetica (Venice, I560), p. 48, offers specific advice on methods of dissimulation, but not in as great detail as Sturm.

12

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

poem which strongly resemblesone in a classicalpoem? What sort of expectations should such a readerhave? Can one translatethis advice for literary production into a guide for interpretation? On the basis of the transformative and dissimilativeaspectsof imitation, only one principle emerges. A readermust be very cautious in even calling a similarity between two texts an imitation or an allusion, much less in analyzing the use or significanceof the similarity. This less than inspiringprinciple,which could be fairly statedmuch of more skeptically,confronts one at every turn. First, transformation the model into somethingnew and different,especiallywhen transformation is conceived as the meansof hiding a text's relationto its model, calls into question the possibility of identifying the model. A transformation would not be understoodeven thoroughly dissimulated "the silent searchingof the mind"; the relation between text and by model disappears. even if the relationis graspedby the learned,one Or wonders about a communicativeintent that is so carefully concealed. The relationmay be crucialfor understanding text's genesisor the the author's reading, but insignificant for an interpretationof the text itself. Even if a readerhas identified a model or models, anotherproblem of intent arises.One way to approach is to examinea conflict implicit it in the apian and digestive analogies as Seneca uses them: We too should imitate the bees;we should separate whateverwe have fromdiverse heldapart better and are gathered reading things (for preserved), thenhavingcarefully our intellect, shouldmix thosevarious we sips applied into one taste,so thateven if whereit hasbeentakenfrom appears, will it nevertheless other thanwhere it has been takenfrom. We see that appear naturedoes this in our bodieswithout any effort on our part. (Ep. mor.
84.5-6)

The effortlessness digestion makesall the difference.Does a similariof between text and model result from conscious intention-the apty plication of intellect-or an unconsciousprocess?The constantadvice to digest or assimilateone's readingmakesit highly probablethat some unconscious absorptionand reproductionwill take place. Petrarch's story about Giovanni Malpaghini and the Virgilian phrase in BucolicumCarmen6 furnishesone instance of unconscious
reminiscence. In Le Familiari 22.2.11-13 Petrarch provides a disturb-

of ingly persuasiveanalysisof the consequences complete assimilation,

IMITATION

IN THE RENAISSANCE

13

althoughone must make some allowancefor his obvious desireto Boccacciowith the paradoxthat an authoris less likely to impress remember what he knows best.Petrarch two of distinguishes classes which he has done. On the one hand he readauthorslike reading Enniusand Plautusonly once and quicklyat that;if he memorized anythingof theirs,it was so alien to his own thoughtsthat it stood in his memoryas another's. the otherhand,he readand reread On and Boethius.He digestedtheir works so Virgil, Cicero, Horace, thatthey entered bone marrow, just his memory. his not thoroughly their became mucha partof hismindthatoccasionally phrases so They cameto his pen withouthis recognizing sourceor even thatthey the
came from someone else.19

Petrarch's of reminiscence offers explanation unconscious particular difficulties it because castsdoubtson just thosetextsto which one would supposean authorwould allude.For one usuallyfeels most confident betweentwo textsan allusionwhen the callinga similarity to putativemodelis a famouswork or a work known to be familiar of the author the "alluding" An analogue fromeveryday text. experience may help clarify Petrarch's and also remove any explanation to that suspicion he is exaggerating makea paradoxical, epigrammatic for havehadanoriginal ideathata lateraccident, point.Moststudents instance lecture notesaftersometimehaselapsed, suddenhas rereading
Compare Montaigne on his memory in "De la praesumption,"Oeuvrescompletes, ed. Albert Thibaudet and Maurice Rat (Paris, 1962), p. 635: "Je feuillette les livres,je ne les estudie pas: ce qui m'en demeure, c'est chose que je ne reconnois plus d'estre d'autrui; c'est cela seulement dequoy mon jugement a faict son profict, les discourset les imaginationsdequoy il s'est imbu; l'autheur,le lieu, les mots et autres circonstances, les oublie incontinent." Cicero, De oratore 2.59-60, uses sunburnas je a metaphor for unintentionalinfluence, and E. K., in his dedicatory letter to Gabriel Harvey, uses Cicero's comparison to defend Spenser'sarchaic diction: "In whom [older English authors]whenas this our Poet hath bene much traveiledand throughly redd, how could it be, (as that worthy Oratour sayde) but that walking in the sonne although for other cause he walked, yet needes he mought be sunburnt;and having the sound of those auncient Poetes still ringing in his eares, he mought needes in singing hit out some of theyr tunes. But whether he useth them by such casualtye and custome, or of set purpose and choyse ..." (Spenser,Poetical Works,ed. J. C. Smith and E. de Selincourt [Oxford, 1912], p. 416). Compare Thomas Wilson, The Arte of Rhetorique ed. (1560), G. H. Mair (Oxford, I909), p. 5. I owe these references to sunburn to David Kalstone, Sidney'sPoetry: Contextsand Interpretations (Cambridge, 1965), p. 191, n. 2I.

19

14

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

but had ly shownto havebeentheirteacher's, theteaching beenso well the students it becamea partof theirthinking,not that digestedby an elementlodged in theirmemories. The counselof a dissimulated imitationonly to be understood by the the learned different kindsof function. Landino conceives suggests so highestkind of poetry (Virgil,Dante)as writtenfor the learned, that a hiddenallusion, just like the hiddenallegoryof AeneidI-6 which Albertiso subtlydevelops,probably considerable has significance. The fact of an imitation'sconcealment, does not therefore, necessarily imply absenceof function.In other cases,however,the functionmaybe no morethanto allow thelearned the reader pleasure of recognizing phrase from an ancient a E. K., for example,in poet. letter to Spenser's his dedicatory mentionsthe Calender, Shepheardes customof firsttrying one'spowerswith pastoral poetic poetry and "whose cites some authors who followed this Virgilianprogression, thisAuthoreverywherefolloweth,yet so as few, but they be foting wel sentedcan tracehim out" (p. 418). This clausereadslike an invitationto the learnedto listenfor echoesof ancientpastoralists. Besidesthe possibilityof allusions only for the erudite,one may on words,designedonly for the author's encounterallusions, plays pleasure-another type of imitationthatmaynot functionin a work. Vidais expliciton thispoint:"OftenI like to playwith andto allude to [alludere] from the ancients and,while usingpreciselythe phrases samewords,to express Pleasure thelearned for or another meaning."20 pleasurefor the writer both may reduceimitationto a matterof genesis.I do not meanto belittlestudiesof genesis,but one cannot overlookthe confusioncreated failures distinguish in to of questions and function. genesis The apianmetaphor eclecticgathering vocabulary the of of and are and specificadviceon ways to transform disguisegood phrases of a tendency writingson imitation: reduction in of the symptomatic imitationto matters elocutio. his manuscript Quintilian, of In next of of words,"Petrarch wrote himself a note, "Read and remember,
Silvanus."21 Both Quintilian and Petrarch, however, devote more The "DeArtePoetica" Marco Girolamo Vida,ed. andtr. RalphG. Williams of I with translation andelsewhere here (New York,1976), 3.257-258. quoteWilliams' an occasional modification.
20

to I0.2.27, "Imitation,I will say againand again,is not merely a matter

IMITATION

IN THE RENAISSANCE

15

theoretical or energyto discussing style thaninventio dispositio. They aretypicalin exhorting writers extendimitation to elocutio and beyond in neglecting do muchmorethanexhort.Vidatreats to imitatio primahe admonirily as a matterof diction,although offersthe customary tion to imitatetheothertwo parts rhetoric: of in "We appropriate one instance theirbrilliant in the inventions, another orderthey employ" to and (3.214-215). He quicklyreturns his maininterest showshimself an extremist recommending theft of "thewordsthemselves." the by theft belongsto the vocabulary failed transformation of Ordinarily andis usedto attack.Only Vida, to my knowledge,exaltstheft into a termof praise, one (Sat. 6.1.3).22 although findsa hint in Macrobius In anycaseVida's of as version conception imitation theft,theextreme of imitationas gathering indicates someimitathat stylisticbeauties, tions are limited to style and do not bring the text and model into relationin any otherway. So far an examination the transformative dissimulative of and asof imitationhasproduced in some all pects only difficulties, relating hermeneutical of and way to themajor problem thepossibility importanceof assessing authorial of intention. discussions imitation The call into questionthe possibility identifyingmodels,or if the identity of is agreedupon,the possibility understanding use of the model. of the No methodfor progressing from the observation resemblance of between two texts to an assertion relationbetween them has yet of of emerged.So far thereis very little evidence,from the theorists tojustifyimitation anything in otherthanan element the as imitation, for however, genesisof a text. The thirdclassof analogies imitation, eristicmetaphors, open the possibility regarding imitation does of an as an important functionof the text itself.

et Quoted by Pierre de Nolhac, Petrarque l'humanisme (Paris, I907), vol. 2, p. De Nolhac, p. 9I, shows that Silvanus is a name Petrarchoften used for himself. 22 Cf. Sturm, De imitationeoratoriaI.II. For theft and imitation see Eduard Literatur(Leipzig and Berlin, 1912) and Stemplinger,Das Plagiat in dergriechischen Harold Ogden White, Plagiarism Imitation and A duringtheEnglishRenaissance: Study in CriticalDistinctions(Cambridge, I935).
92.

21

16

RENAISSANCE
III

QUARTERLY

The two most strikingeristic analogiesI have found raisecompetition condition for creativity.In "Longinus"'original or strife to a necessary and stimulating discussion of imitation one finds this comment on Plato's indebtednessto Homer: so Nor doesit seemto me thathe wouldhaveexcelled muchin hisphilosophical doctrinesor would have so often hit on poeticalsubjectmatterand with Homerfor had expression, he not, by God,with all his heartstruggled an admired like one, peragainst already preeminence, a young competitor and, as it were, breakinga lance with him, but haps too contentiously to nevertheless withoutprofit.For,according Hesiod,"Thisstrife[eris] not is good for mortals." And trulythiscontestfor the crownof glory is noble is andmostworthwinning,in whicheven to be defeated one'selders not by
inglorious. (I3.4-5)

This passage expressesa characteristicambivalence about emulation. Plato's excellence as a philosophic authorlargely dependson his strugfeels compelled to excuse "Longinus" gle with Homer, but nevertheless the contentiousness and violence of the competition. "Longinus"shies away from analyzing the motives that lead to struggle and apparently feels some uneasiness about the competitive impulse despite its importance for attainingexcellence. Consequentlyhe insists,by his quotation from Hesiod, that one can distinguishemulation or competition from strife and contentiousness. The opening of the WorksandDays correctswhat Hesiod had said about eris in the Theogony: there are two kinds of eris, a good and a bad. One stirsup war and suffering;the other stimulatesmen, even lazy men, to increasetheir substanceout of a desire to compete with their neighbors,and "this eris is good for mortals."Up until this point one has a fairly simple opposition between bad and good, destructiveand creative. The next two lines, however, show that the good, creative eris is not so benign as appearedat first:"And the potter bearsill will to and the [K07TEL]towardsthe potter and the carpenter the carpenter, the beggar envies [qcpov4EL] beggarand the singer,the singer."Ill will, malice, anger, envy, begrudging (kotos, phthonos)at first glance seem much more appropriateto the bad eris. A recent and authoritative commentator on the passage, M. L. West, explains the discrepancy and with referenceto Hesiod'sratherloose mental associations, "KO670' are <pOOvo; not in the spirit of the good Eris, but the idea of rivalry

IMITATION

IN THE RENAISSANCE

17

I makesthe lines relevantenough for Hesiod."23 would like to suggest, however, that the appearanceof kotosand phthonosreveals Hesiod's ambivalencetowardsthe dinstinctionhe is now drawing between two types of eris. (After all he once recognized only the baleful eris of the figulinum, as Nietzsche calls it,24points to the Theogony.)The odium darkermotivations of emulation and competition-envy, malice. The distinctionbetween the two kinds of erisis more concernedwith their effects; they partially share motivations springing from some sort of ill will. Even the good eris has a bad background. Regardlessof his attitude towards it, emulation, the good eris, has for Hesiod associationsless benevolent than its epithet would suggest. Hesiod does not try to excuse a connection of emulation with envy or malice, as does "Longinus"' "perhapstoo contentiously." "Longinus" does not focus on the competitive component of emulation. Rather than analyze its motivations or mechanism, he envelops its workings in mystery by comparingit to the inspriationof the Pythian priestess. The other authorwho advocatescompetition as a necessaryelement of creativity gives a glimpse of the ferocity latent in emulation. Calcagnini closes his letter to Giraldi with the story of the birth of Anteros.25 Venus, worried why Cupid (Eros),her newly born son, was not growing, asked Themis for advice. Themis replied that Cupid would grow if Venus had anotherson for Cupid to competewith. And after the birth of Anteros, Cupid, of course, had a growth spurt. Calcagnini draws the moral in the closing sentencesof his letter: I thinkyou will easilyconcludefrom this storythatno brilliant mindscan makesubstantial unlessthey havean antagonist the Greeks (as progress say) with whom they may struggle[quicum and decertent] wrestle.And we must contend[contendamus] only with ourcontemporaries, alsowith those not but who wrotein thepast,whomwe call"silent teachers masters." Otherwise and
we will always be speechlesschildren. (Trattati1.220)

The myth of Anteros allows Calcagnini to justify strife in universal

Hesiod, Worksand Days, ed. M. L. West (Oxford, 1978), p. I47. See "Homers Wettkampf," in FriedrichNietzsche, Werke,ed. Karl Schlechta (Munich, 1969), vol. 3, p. 294. Nietzsche, however, argues that Hesiod's conception of the value of envy is typically Greek and alien to moders. 25 Robert V. Merrill, "Eros and Anteros," Speculum,19 (1944), 274ff., discusses this passage and Calcagnini'sAnterossive de mutuoamore.
24 23

18

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

terms.The myth excusesviolence and envy as necessary the formafor tion of "brilliantminds." Calcagini lets one detect the passagefrom admiring, reverent imitation to full-scale warfare with the admired master, for this mythical naturalization of violence follows the gladiatorial glee of overcoming inferiority. It is not only disgraceful also dangerous one old enoughto be able but for to standandwalk to stickalwaysto another's and footsteps[vestigiis] to use what Varrocallsknee-splints,26 they do not easilybecomestrongwho since walk with another's fightwith another's see feet, hands, with another's eyes, with another's and who finallyobliviousof themselves live speak tongue, with another's Now of coursethis is fine for thosewho haveyet to spirit. come of age, who still eat babyfood, whoselimbsarestill boundin swadand are let dling bands.But thosewho aremature whosemuscles stronger, themnow comeout of the shade, themnow leaponto the field,let them let with the gladiator-trainer now contend himselfwhoseprecepts they usedto with him andnot yield, but rather receive,and let them try theirstrength and forward, press puttingit to the testwhether theytoo canbe commanders theirown prowesstossdown theiradversary fromhis position.(Trattati by
1.219)

The model, without whose help any progressis impossible,as Calcagnini says at the beginning of his letter, has become an adversary engaging the young author in a fight to the death. One detects the resentmentof dependence not only in the gladiatorial and military imagery and the sarcasmabout baby food and swaddling bands. The of repetitionof another's conveys the rising frustration the imitator,and the repetition of now rings out like a battle cry of exhortation. This violence requiresan explanationand receivesit in the mythical moralization of Anteros;any possible malice, envy, ingratitudeare ignored because of the necessity of competition. Hesiod, "Longinus,"and Calcagnini allow one to recognize envy and contentiousness the dark side of emulation.LaterI will suggest as that this darkside plays an importantrole in preventingaemulatio from a technicalterm for a particulartype of imitation. But one becoming must first try to show that a fairly clear conception of aemulatio exists in some theoristseven though they draw no explicit imitatio/aemulatio
astris" of instead thecorrect see Weinberg prints "semper "serperastris";Caelius is to Calcagninus, Opera (Basel,1544),p. 275.Calcagnini referring Varro,de lingua
latina 9.11.
26

IMITATION

IN THE RENAISSANCE

19

distinction. The passages from Calcagnini provide a good starting point, although they presentunusuallyviolent eristicimagery,because they contain the two most common classesof eristic analogy:decertent and contendamus the Anteros myth; vestigiisin the second passage. in Forms of certoand contendo generally used to advocate aemulatio, are often in opposition to forms ofsequor,a majortermfor imitationwhen not used to indicate a third kind of imitation called following. A cluster of images associatedwith paths-via (or callis or a similiar word), dux, vestigium-comprise the other class of eristic metaphor. Both classesare used to supportboth imitation and emulation,depending on the theorist'sview of competition and the possibilityof successful competition. The opening of Lucretius'third book offers the earliestexample of an eristicopposition of sequor certo/contendo. and Lucretiusis invoking
Epicurus:

I follow [sequor] gloryof the Greeks, I placemy footsteps[vestigia] and you, in your footprints,not desiringto compete[certandi but firmly cupidus], me because love for you makes long to imitateyou. Forwhy would the my swallow contend[contendat] swans?(3-7) with Lucretiusequatesimitation with following the footsteps of his master This type of following and rejectsemulation as futile contentiousness. rejects the transformationof inventio;Lucretius' use of the bees as gathererscomes immediately after the lines quoted above.27 Although one finds numerous examples of vestigiaused to state a over aemulatio, other instancesof the contenthe preferencefor imitatio dere/sequiopposition all support emulation. Quintilian'sbrief discussion was probably the single most influential statement:28 But even those who do not seek the heightsshouldcontendratherthan follow. Forhe who triesto be in frontmayequaleven if he cannotsurpass. No one, however,can equalthe personwhose footsteps thinkshe must he
tread in: for the follower will always of necessity be behind. (I0.2.9-IO)

solo" (i.926-927= 4.1-2). Forsimilar of locanulliusante/trita assertions originality

see Virgil, Geo. 3.289-294, and Horace, Epist. 1.19.21-2 and Ars poetica 285-8.
28

27 In other of such Lucretius asserts originality treating the however, passages, inLatin byreversing vestigia verse difficult the "avia Pieridum subjects peragro topos:

Fora formulation eloon "Della see Barbaro, dependent Quintilian Daniel

quenza," Trattati2.359.

20

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

eristicterm:"Thiswill be theirpraise; with another chapter theywill be saidto have surpassed predecessors to have taughttheir their and successors. One of the few pointsof agreement betweenPico and Bemboin their exchangeof letterson imitationis a preference strivingto for of rather thanfor following.Pico,aftercitingPlato's criticism surpass imitators Horace's and "servum asserts all good authors that pecus," have soughtfameby othermeansthanimitation: "Rather, they have in either opposedtheir predecessors strenuous or strivento rivalry the agreesthatsurpassing modelshouldbe the goal, but believesthis bestaccomplished devotingoneselfto one model (Virgilfor epic, by Cicero for prose):"Thiscan occurmost easilyif we imitateto the utmosttheonewhomwe desire surpass" 56).Bembois reversing to (p. statement that the follower must alwaysbe second.He Quintilian's continues proposingthe following "law": by we imitate onewhois bestof all;next,we should the imitate First, should in sucha waythatwe strive overtake finally, oureffort should to all him; be devoted surpassing oncewe haveovertaken Accordingly him to him. we should in ourminds have those outstanding two of verygreat accomplishers emulation hope.But emulation and should be matters, always joinedto imitation. 56-57) (pp. Pico and Bembo are coming very close to a distinctionbetween imitationand emulation. Pico imitationbringsno glory and is For A to following;rivalryandtryingto surpass superior. are equivalent few lineslaterPico explicitlycallsVirgil "anemulator the ancients of ratherthanan imitator," not in the eristicsensehe hasjust exbut The third stage in Bembo'sthreefold"law of imitation" plained. aemulatio. sentences The whichfollow, however,show that represents he does not regardit as a technical term,but ratheras a feeling of admiring rivalry. The vestigia the topos,perhaps mostcommonof the commonplaces, cansupport bothimitation emulation. and Statius it to express uses his admiration Virgil andto admithis own senseof inferiority his for in to address hisbookat the endof the Thebaid: not touchthedivine "Do and Aeneid,but follow from a distance alwaysadoreits footsteps." Vida advisesthe aspiring "Revere poet to follow Virgil'sfootsteps:
surpassthem by a wide margin, not to follow them" (p. 25). Bembo

ratherthanimitatio closeshis and Quintilian is recommendingaemulatio

IMITATION

IN THE RENAISSANCE

21

Virgil in your mind before all others, then; follow him only, and as In addition one far as you are able, keep to his footsteps" (I.208-209). finds numerous passages in which someone is praised or approved for following footsteps, or is advised to do so, in such authors as Seneca, Pliny, Longueil, Dolet, Ricci, Parthenio, Ramus, Ascham, Sturm, and Harvey.29 Typical of these usages is Giraldi's remark to Calcagnini, "I think that I have achieved enough, if I occasionally have been able to
stick to Cicero's footsteps" (Trattati, 1.203).

Petrarch, on the other hand, makes avoiding the footsteps of his predecessors a central principle of his conception of imitation, even though he recognizes the difficulty of the task (Fam. 23.I9.I5). In another letter to Boccaccio Petrarch reelaborates Seneca's vestigia topos; both passages also contain forceful examples of the use of dux and via (semita, callis) to show a preference for emulation over imitation: Indeed I will What then?I will not go through the footsteps of predecessors? use the old road [via vetere],but if I discover a flatter and a more suitable one, I will open the way myself. The people who pondered these matters before us are not our mastersbut our leaders. (Ep. mor. 33.II) What then? I like to follow the path [semitam] predecessors,but not of another'sfootsteps. I am willing on occasion to borrow, not to steal always from others' writings, but as long as I can, I prefer my own. I take pleasure in similarity,not identity, a similaritythat is not excessive,in which the light of the follower's mind stands out, not his blindness or poverty. I think it better to do without a leader than to be forced to follow a leader through everything. I do not want a leader who binds me, but one who goes ahead; let me have my eyes with a leader, my judgment and freedom. I would not be prohibited from placing my foot where I wish and passing by elsewhere and trying the inaccessible.And I would be permitted to follow a shorter, or if I am so inclined, a flatter path [callem]and to hasten and to stop and
to turn aside and to turn back. (Fam. 22.2.20-2I)30
29

Seneca, mor. 79.16;Pliny,Epist.6.I1.2; Longueil, quotedby Telle,L'ErasEp.

mianus, p. 313; Dolet, p. 66; Ricci, p. 66v; Parthenio, pp. 65, 87; Ramus, p. 78;
1864), pp. i80, 181; Sturm, Nobilitas Literata, p. 23; Harvey, pp. 82, 102.

ed. Ascham,letter to Sturm,The WholeWorks RogerAscham, Giles (London, of

30 In my opinionthereis no doubtthatPetrarch emulating from the passage is to refers Ep.mor. than Seneca rather justusinga topos.Petrarch 33.7,a sectionagainst

basedon Seneca,not to excerptand of theseletterscontainsa long exhortation, ubi "Placetignotatentare, sepeviam non the via andvestigia sentence: paraphrases

"captareflosculos,"in three different letters (Fam. 1.3.4, 4.15.17, 24.1.9). The second

22

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

Petrarch'sexpansion of these lines from Seneca is a good example of his persistentattempt to make his practiceconform to his theory. He is following his own advice to abstainfrom reproducingsomeone else's phrasing (Fam. 23.I9.I3). He keeps only the common phrase,"What then?",which by itself alertsno one to this passagein Seneca.He uses Seneca's figures-footsteps, road, leader-but changes the wording: "Path of predecessors"for "footsteps of predecessors,""shorter or and callemfor via. He flatter"for "flatterand more suitable,"semitam but much more determinedly rejects preservesSeneca'sgeneral idea, servile following-so much so that he seems defensive. He even corrects Seneca by implying he did not go far enough: the dismissalof masters is not enough. Petrarchwants a leader too, but feels that a leader is sometimes as oppressiveas a master.His revision of Seneca's leader/master distinction consequently contains implicit criticism of too facile an opposition in Seneca. Petrarch'sown version of what emulation should be-his statementof the attitude one should adopt towardsa model-presents a fine example of one common characteristic of emulation: (implicit) criticism of the model.31
IV

The proliferationof eristicmetaphorsallows one to make a distinction between imitation and emulation. Although such a distinction is implicit in writings on imitation from Horace'sEpistulaeI.I9 on, no one makesit explicitly, as far as I know, until Erasmus, who does not adopt
inveniens aut vageris aut corruas; placet illorum segui vestigia..." (4.I5.I8). For

Petrarch'sthorough acquaintancewith Seneca, especially the letters to Lucilius, see de Nolhac, vol. 2, pp. 115-126. It is ironic that Petrarchis violating his own advice against "captare flosculos" and excerpting from commentaries in Fam. 22.2; his quotation from Lucretiuscomes from Macrobius (Sat. 6.2.3). Petrarch,as de Nolhac (vol. i, pp. I59-160) shows, has no first-handknowledge of Lucretius. 31 One final vestigia topos deservescitation because at least two other authorsErasmus, pp. 296, 302 (quoted below), and Parthenio, p. 107-approve and quote

it. I refer to Poliziano's (Prosatori, 904): "Sed ut bene currerenon potest qui pedem p. ponere studet in alienis tantum vestigiis, ita nec bene scribere qui tamquam de praescriptonon audet egredi." A few examples of dux to advocate or approve close
imitation: Petrarch, Fam. 24.4.4-5;
24.7.3; 24.9.1;

24.12.3,18,22,23,24,42;

Cortesi,

Prosatori, 906, 90o; Bembo, pp. 51,54; Dolet, p. 56; Ascham, letter to Sturm, p. pp. 182; Levin to Harvey, Ciceronianus, 38. One finds path used similarly in Bembo, p.
p. 56; Vida 3.I85; Dolet, p. 66. Quintilian (10.5.7), Pico (p. 26), and Levin (Harvey,

p. 38) use via to support emulation.

IMITATION

IN THE RENAISSANCE

23

ce.33 Cicero's Tusculanae disputationes 4.I7 gives two meanings of aemulatio:the imitation of virtue and the anxiety felt when one desires and lacks something which another possesses. Nonius defines the envious aspect of aemulatio by contrasting it with imitatio:
32

emulation a technical term.32 as Usually the distinction emerges in the contrasts I have been tracing: servile/free (in Horace), metaphoric follower/competitor or surpasser,thief/borrower-transformer,ape/ man. I would like to suggest that aemulatiodoes not emerge as a technicalterm for the freer,more competitive and transformative type of imitation at least partly becauseof its ambiguousmoral significan-

literarischer Arno Reiff, interpretatio, imitatio,aemulatio: Begrif und Vorstellung bei Abhdngigkeit den Romern (diss. Cologne, I959), pp. 73ff., claims that aemulatio

a becomes fixedcriticaltermin the age of Tiberius. evidence The doesnot bearhim 2. out. Phaedrus' of aemulatio, ep. 7, is moreplausibly use as explained moralrather thantechnical; prologues epiloguesareobsessed his with envy andthe criticism and
he may receive (calumniari,I. prol. 5; livor, obtrectare, ep. Io; livor, 3. prol. 60; 2. obtrectare prol. i5-16; livor, 4.22.1; invidia, 5. prol. 9), But the major objections 4.

as to takingaemulatio a designation a type of imitationarethatit often appears for in in and as a synonymfor imitatio thatQuintilian o1.2 andSeneca Ep. mor.84, the two mostextended mostimportant and of discussions imitationin the firstcentury in which Reiff curiously (andperhaps any other),discussions neglects,do not use in it. aemulatio, althoughthey areadvocating Quintilian's only use of aemulari o0.2 occursat section17 in a list of imitators to who fall into the vitianearest the virtutes of their models;the context shows that he is just varyinghis verbs,not using a technical term.At Io.I.61 Quintilian studet refersto Horace's "Pindarum quisquis aemulari" 4.2.I) as follows:"propter Horatius eum meritoneminicredit (Od. quae imitabilem." Pliny,who frequently aemulor aemulatio describe And to has and literary instare "meis at with synonomous. vestigiis" Pliny's joiningof improba aemulatio 1.2.3 and 7.30.5 suggeststhat he has its ambiguous not moral significance, a technical of literaryone, in mind. I do not questionthe existenceof varyingconceptions in imitation thefirstcentury, do I challenge usefulness aemulatio describe nor of to the one of them,provided one realizes it is not an ancient that term.(For that technical similar criticisms Reiff seethe reviewby Manfred of Fuhrmann, Gnomon, [1961], 33 classicists makea distinction betweenimitatio aemulatio. and See, 445-448). Several for example, Ulrichvon Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Untersuund Sappho Simonides: iiber chungen griechische Lyriker Sapphica (Berlin,1913),p. 323;Folco Martinazzoli, et Vergiliana: alcunitemiletterari tradizione Su classica della poetica (Bari,1958),esp. "Introduzione: imitazione, emulazione, originalita," 7-31; G. M. A. Grube,The pp. Greek Roman and Critics see (Toronto,I965),p. 211.In particular GordonWilliams' fine discussion imitatio aemulatio postvirgilian of and and in epic, Change Decline: Roman Literature theEarlyEmpire in and (Berkeley LosAngeles,1978),pp. I93-2I3. 33 Cf. Oraziolirico(Florence, GiorgioPasquali, I920), pp. II9-I23.
relationships,often uses it synonomously with imitatio,for instance in Epist. I.2.2-3 and 1.5.12-13, as Reiff admits (p. 85), and 8.6.13. At 6.11.2 Pliny makes aemulari and

24

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

Aemulatiodiffers from imitatioin that the latter is sincere and admits neither spite nor envy; the former, however, does have the eager application of imitating, but with malice added. (437M) Envy, contentious striving, jealous rivalry cling to aemulatioand hinder its usefulness as a descriptive term; an overtone of condemnation threatens to interfere. In Pliny, for example, who uses aemulatio in literary contexts much more frequently than his predecessors, it does not acquire the status of a technical term contrasting with imitatio and occasionally requires an apology. In Epistulae 1.2 Pliny is sending a speech to a friend for correction: I have tried to imitate [imitari]Demosthenes,always a favorite of yours, and Calvus, recently a favorite of mine, at least in figures of speech;for the "few whom just .. ." [Jupiterloved; Aeneid6.129] are able to achieve [adsequi] the force of such men. Nor was the subjectmatterincompatiblewith this-I fear I speak presumptuously [improbe]-aemulatio.(2-3) Pliny here uses imitari, adsequi, and aemulatio interchangeably; he is following his models, not contending with them, imitating not emulating them. But when using aemulatio as a synonym for imitatio, he is afraid of laying himself open to a charge of shamelessness or presumption and excuses himself in accordance with rhetorical doctrine on using too daring an expression. At the conclusion of Epistulae 7.9 Pliny is advocating aemulatioin translation. He explains that this certare, this contentiois bold but not shameless (improba)because it is a private exercise, not a public attempt to shine. In Epistulae 7.30 Pliny rejects the moral excess of aemulari for the neutral imitari and sequi. Once he again emulating is improbum; also calls it "paene furiosum" ("almost insane"). For Pliny aemulatio refers to the author's emotional attitude and motivation, not to a literary technique. Regardless of the reasons why aemulatiodoes not become a technical term, it has considerable usefulness as a designation for the type of imitation advocated by eristic metaphors. Erasmus, the first person to distinguish literary imitatio and aemulatio, uses eristic diction to make the distinction: Some shrewd people distinguishimitation from emulation. Imitationaims at similarity; emulation, at victory. Thus, if you take all of Cicero and him alone for your model, you should not only reproducehim, but also defeat him. He must not be just passed by, but rather left behind. (p. II6)34
34

One would like to know who these shrewd people are. Does Erasmushave

IMITATION

IN THE RENAISSANCE

25

Towards the end of his dialogue Erasmus returns to imitatio/aemulatio: Again, in this branch of study I want Cicero to be first and foremost, not the only one, and I do not think that one should only follow him, but rather imitate him and even emulate him. For the follower walks in the footsteps it of anotherand is a slave to his model. Furthermore, has been well said that a person who places his foot in the footstep of another cannot walk well, and no one can ever swim well who does not dare to throw away the life preserver.An imitator, however, desiresto say not so much the same things as similar ones-in fact sometimes not even similar,but ratherequal things. But the emulator strives to speak better, if he can. (p. 302) This reformulation shows the fluidity of boundaries among the types of imitation. Instead of a simple opposition one finds the fuller threefold progression: following, imitating, emulating. Following is rejected as clinging to a model's footsteps. Imitating no longer aims only at similarity, as in the previous passage, but rather at equality. Emulating still in a sense tries to achieve a victory, but the emphasis is shifted to producing something better. The difference between the two statements of aemulatio lies in the word's potential ambivalence; striving to surpass (contentiousness) or striving to surpass (producing something better). This threefold division partially depends, I think, on a hidden metaphor of the path: following a forerunner, catching up with him, passing him. The division is also determined by the three logical possibilities of comparison: worse (less), equal, better (more). The middle term can quite easily drop out-especially if one is thinking of the brief moment when a runner is alongside a competitor before leave a simple opposition: behind/in front of, passing him-and And in fact this is what often happens in writings on worse/better. imitation. Sometimes the more complete threefold scheme of following, imitating, emulating appears, and following is supposedly distin-

particularpeople in mind, is he referring to an idea "in the air," or is he just being casual without intending to suggest anyone? As observed earlier, Pico and Bembo come closest to making a distinction between imitatioand aemulatio. PerhapsErasmus heardsuch a distinction during his stay in Rome in I509, during which visit he heard the Ciceronian sermon which alarmedhim so much (see Ciceroniano, lvii-lviii pp. and pp. I28ff.). In any event Erasmusclaims that he did not know the correspondence between Pico and Bembo until after the publication of the Ciceronianus: the letter see
to Vlatten, 24 January 1529, Ciceroniano, p. 326.

26

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

guished from imitating. Other times a simple opposition appearsfollow/surpass, servile/free-and imitating and following are identified.35One finds, for example, in Erasmus, besides the imitatio/
aemulatio opposition of the "shrewd people" and the later threefold scheme, an opposition between following and surpassing, in which the moment of overtaking is ignored. Bulephorus is describing Cicero's use of Demosthenes: "He was not content to follow Demosthenes, but prudently chose to avoid some things and correct others, and he emulated what he approved in such a way that he strove to surpass it" (p. 172). Regardless of whether one distinguishes two or three species of imitation, aemulatio includes the attempt to surpass the model, and this attempt generally has important consequences for a reader of imitative poetry because it conflicts with dissimulative advice. Aemulatio calls attention to itself and deliberately challenges comparison with its model. The relation between text and model becomes an important element in the text itself. A passage from Vida shows how dissimulation and aemulatio are mutually exclusive. He is discussing two possibilities for imitating the style of a model. Some can steal from refined poets and then hide the thefts; others make no attempt to conceal them. The refusal of dissimulation occurs in two cases; the second is aemulatio as libido certandi indicates: In other cases,aflamewith a desireto compete with the ancients,they delight in vanquishingthem by snatchingfrom their handseven materialwhich has long been their peculiarpossession,but which is, however, ill-fashioned, and
improving it. (3.228-230)

The emulator tries not to disguise the relations between text and model because the reader cannot appreciate the victory over the model without recognizing it.36 35 Ricci's to distinction, quoted in the introduction this sequi/imitari/aemulari to althoughit also recallsBembo'sabove-quoted paper,may be indebted Erasmus, A contendamus praetereamus. memberof to from imitandum assequi to progression in Bembo's circlein Venice,DanielBarbaro, his "Dellaeloquenza" (1557) alsooffers "Et a threefold divisionof imitation: in brieve, gli bisogna aprir occhie nelloimitare di i dotti et eccellentiuomini si richiedeconsiderare che forma essi sieno pii e abondanti di che meno, acci6 che sapendo qual cagioneessi stati sieno tali, per e de non ancora siatolto il potereaglistudiosi accostarsi et aguagliarli,se possibile loro, e (che pure e possible al modo gia detto) di superargli"(Trattati2.450). With these betweenservileandfree of contrast Sturm's divisions imitation opposition tripartite
imitation, De imitationeoratoriaI.2.
^36

and a to Seneca ElderandMacrobius the both appear recognize dissimulative

IMITATION

IN THE RENAISSANCE

27

What Vida is here saying about style can apply to mattersof inventio The anddispositio. importantpoint is that the rejectionof dissimulation reduces and potentially eliminates some of the difficulties raised by and transformative dissimulativedoctrine.A readercan feel justifed by between two texts in this aspectof aemulatio interpretinga resemblance as an allusion. A readercan feel justified in expecting a text to assert its difference from its model and to make use of that difference.37 In addition eristic metaphors suggest what kind of difference aemulatiomay produce because the continual insistence on conflict suggests that a text may criticize, correct, or revise its model. For example, when Vida's emulatordisplayshis improvementof another's elocutio, he passesjudgment on the words as "ill-fashioned." The emulatoris correctingand criticizing his model. I have alreadypointed assertionof his independence to the implicit criticismwhich Petrarch's from a leader makes of Seneca'sEpistulaemorales33: Seneca does not recognize the danger that a leader may become a master.For explicit criticismjoined to an imitation consider the following passagefrom Milton's Lycidas:
Where were ye Nymphs when the remorselessdeep Clos'd o'er the head of your lov'd Lycidas?

nondissimulative type of imitation. Seneca is commenting on imitations of the Virgilian phrase, "plena deo," (which does not appear in our texts of Virgil). He reports that Ovid liked the phraseand transposedit to his Medea:"non subripiendi causa, sed palam mutuandi, hoc animo ut vellet agnosci" (Suas. 3.7). In Macrobius, Sat. 1.24.I8, Eustathiusbriefly contrasts Virgil's two methods of imitation: artifex imitatio.Neither Senecanor Macrobiusis referringto emulaand dissimulatio professa tion. 37 Aemulatio,of course, is no panacea;difficulties remain. The reader startswith a resemblancebetween texts, not a guide pointing to emulations as opposed to imitations. Even if the author, Petrarch, Poliziano, or Jonson, for example, has expresseda preferencefor emulation, there is no guaranteethat he may not borrow a phrase here and there in a nontransformative,nonemulative fashion. For authors who have not written on imitation/emulation one can only try to deduce from their work which type of imitation they generally approve and practice.Also, it is difficult to be sure whether an emulation is striving with the structure,themes, premises of its model or only striving with the expression;the emulation may not extend beyond a stylistic trick, as often in Vida. Frequently a major interpretive difficulty arisesin trying to determineif an emulation is reworking a particularpassageor a topos; one is not surejust what is being contended with. I hope to elaborate these points in a future study.

28

RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY

For neitherwere ye playingon the steep, the Where your old Bards, famousDruids, lie, Nor on the shaggytop of Monahigh, her Nor yet whereDeva spreads wizardstream. Ay me, I fondly dream! Had ye been there-for what could that have done? Milton's lines follow the pattern set by the addressto the nymphs in Theocritus' Idyll I. 66-69 and its imitation by Virgil in Eclogue Io. 9-I2. Milton's last two lines, however, have no parallel. The selfcriticism applies also to the models; the nymphs' presencewould not have helped Daphnis or Gallusany more than Lycidas.Milton's reversal rebukesTheocritus and Virgil for escaping to a consoling fantasy of what might have been; they are no better than his "uncouthswain." These lines form an important part of Milton's emulative strategy to expose the inadequacyof pagan pastoralelegy as a responseto death. At crucial moments in the poem Milton uses conventions of ancient pastoral in order to undermine and deprive them of their consoling power; by pointing out insufficienciesof pagan pastoralconsolation, Milton clearsthe ground for the triumphantChristianconsolation of Lycidas' reception in heaven. Lycidasalso allows one to illustratethe differencebetween imitation and emulation. Although Milton criticizes the convention of addressing the nymphs, he imitates the procession of speakers,best seen in Theocritus'Idyll I and Virgil'sEclogueIo. Milton certainlytransforms the processionand uses it to structurethe middle section of his poem, but he does not subvert it as he does the addressto the nymphs. In Theocritus and Virgil the speakerscome to console or sneer at the subjectsof the laments, Daphnis and Gallus; the two ancient poems carefully set the scene around the subject and preparethe readerfor a processionof visitors. Milton completely changesthe situation . The processionreceives no setting, and the speakerspass by the "uncouth Swain," the singer of the poem, not Lycidas.Insteadof preparingthe readerfor a processionMilton thrustsit abruptlyinto the poem. The readeris overhearingthe lament over the impotence of poetry in the face of death, a lament which arisesout of Calliope's inability to save when all of a suddenPhoebus Apollo Orpheusfrom dismemberment, this presentinteriormonologue in the past tense-interrupts interrupts the swain in the middle of a line, the only place in the poem where a full stop occursin midline: "And slits the thin-spunlife. 'But not the

IMITATION

IN THE RENAISSANCE

29

praise,'/ Phoebusrepli'd, and touch'd my trembling ears." Phoebus' intrusionis so startling-it forces one to rethinkthe mode of presentation of the poem, which no longer appearsa present lament, but a narrativeof a past experience-that one is unlikely to view it as part of the conventional procession of speakers.Milton is disguising his introductionof the convention;one does not recognizeMilton's imitation until after the swain's comment on Phoebus' speech: But now my Oat proceeds, And listensto the Heraldof the Sea That camein Neptune's plea. Then come Aeolus ("And sage Hippotades"), river Cam ("Next the and St. Peter ("Last came"). Imitating the processions of Camus"), Theocritus and Virgil also gives Milton "occasion,"as he remarksin the headnote to the I645 edition of his Poemsin a proud assertionof post-eventum prophecy, to attack "our corruptedClergy." St. Peter's speechdepartsconsiderablyfrom the spiritof previouspastoralelegies, but the digression appearsnatural as a speech by a member of the the Just as Milton transforms introductionof his procession procession. into the intrusion of Apollo, he transformsthe final speech into a topical criticism of the church. Nevertheless he does not direct his criticism towards the convention he is transformingand consequently is imitating rather than emulating. A final passagefrom Lycidasillustratesanotheraspectof emulation. Unlike the note of criticism or correction, the eristic component of emulation, this aspect is not always present. I am referring to an exploitation of the historical distancebetween a text and its model. Awarenessof the historicalothernessof the model leads in these cases to crucialdepartures from, sometimescriticismsof, the model. Erasmus is the only theoristto confront explicitly the significanceof historical change for imitation and to ground his conception of imitation in his awarenessof change. Erasmusbaseshis attack against strict Ciceronianism,the doctrine that one can achieve an excellent Latinstyle by restrictingoneself only to Ciceronian usage and style, on an argument which one may call historicaldecorum.As the full title of Erasmus' work indicates,Dialosive dicendi gus cui titulusCiceronianus de optimo genere,he is concerned with achieving as good a style as possible.He arguesthat people want to be Ciceronian because that appellation means they are excellent

30

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

speakers or writers, since everyone agrees that Cicero is the consummate Latin stylist. A good stylist, therefore, writes or speaks like Cicero. In addition no one speaks well who does not observe decorum, a proposition which anyone trained in classical and Renaissance rhetoric would surely approve. Erasmus asserts that one speaks with decorum (apte), "if our speech suits the people and conditions of the present [praesentibus]"(p. I24). Erasmus' interpretation of praesentibus,which he refers to the general historical conditions of the present instead of the specific circumstances of the delivery of a speech, allows him to assert the paradox that one must be unlike Cicero to be like Cicero:38 Does the presentsituation of this century seem to correspondwith the ways of those times in which Cicero lived and spoke, since the religion, governmental power, magistracies, commonwealth, laws, customs,pursuits,the very of men-really just about everything-have changed radically? appearance .. .Furthermore, since everywhere the entire scene of human events has been turned upside down, who today can observe decorum in his speechunlesshe greatly differs from Cicero? ...Wherever I turn, I see everything changed, I stand on another stage, I see another theatre,even another world. (p. 126) For Erasmus the primary duty of the imitator is to be aware of the differences between his own day and antiquity, in particular to recognize the moral and stylistic revolution of Christianity, and to adapt the writings of the past to the conditions of the present. Historical decorum requires that the imitator found his style on the insight, "I see everything changed." The conclusion of Lycidas shows how even the significance of the sun has changed since antiquity. The rising and setting of the sun no longer mock men with their perpetual recurrence, thereby insisting on man's mortality; for the Christian they recall the resurrection which follows death and provide natural reassurance of immortality.39 Bion's 38 Later Erasmus eliminates paradox suggesting Ciceroredivivus that the would by of See adapthimselfto the stylisticstandards the present. Ciceroniano, 274. p. 39 ForChristian imagery typologyseeHugo Rahner, sun and Griechische Mythen in christlicher andFranzJoseph Deutung (Zurich, I966),pp. 89ff., Dolger,SolSalutatis: Gebet Gesang christlichem und in Altertum als (Miinster, I925), esp."Jesus Sonneder und Auferstehung Sol Invictus," 364ff.Donne's"Good Friday,1613.Riding pp. Westward" containsa pointedexample: There [in the east]I shouldsee a sun, by risingset, And by thatsettingendlessday beget;

IMITATION

IN THE RENAISSANCE

31

Epitaph 99-I04 introduces into pastoral elegy a contrast between the

naturalcycles of recurrencein natureand the finality of human death. Some such contrastbecomes conventional in later pastoral,for example, in Sannazaroand Marot. Castiglione and his imitator William Drummond substitutethe sun'srising and setting for the vegetational cycles of Bion's Epitaph.40 The topos receives its most concise, and perhapsmost poignant, expressionin Catullus' famous poem, which is outside of the pastoraltradition:"The sun can set and return;once our brief light sets,we must sleep an eternalnight." Catullusstatesthe contrast and then ignores it; it introduces death too forcefully and would spoil the tone of the poem if elaborated.The sun represents an between the human and natural worlds. abyss Milton's consciousnessof the change which Christianityproduces in world history allows him to use the natural world as an analogy for the human and to reversethe traditionalcontrastof pastoralelegy: Weep no more,woeful Shepherds weep no more, For Lycidas sorrowis not dead, your Sunkthoughhe be beneaththe wat'ryfloor, in So sinksthe day-star the Oceanbed, his And yet anonrepairs droopinghead, And trickshis beams,and with new-spangled Ore, of Flamesin the forehead the morningsky: So Lycidas, sunklow, but mountedhigh, the dearmight of him that walk'dthe waves.... Through The rising and settingof the sunbecome a confirmationof the resurrection. This moment of Christian transcendence makes the traditional contrastand its assertionof human mortality obsolete; the conditions of the Christianpresent have made the older poetic convention outmoded. Lycidastriumphsover deathas Lycidastriumphsover previous pastoralswhich fail to realize that the rising of the sun guarantees
But that Christon this Cross,did rise and fall, Sin had eternally all. benighted Thepunson (of God)/sun,of course, numerous of religious inspires passages English in the Renaissance. poetry 40 Sannazaro, de Arcadia, "Eclogue"II.55-63; Marot, "Complaincte Madame collection,ThePastoral 44. All thesepoemsmay be foundin the convenient Elegy: An Anthology, ThomasPerrinHarrison(I939; New York, 1968). ed.
Loyse de Savoye" 177-180; Castiglione, "Alcon" 54-64; Drummond, "Alcon" 37-

32

RENAISSANCE

QUARTERLY

immortality, not eternal death. Milton's "day-star"stands as a silent rebuke to earlierelegies, Castiglione'sand Drummond'sfor example, which fall into the contradiction of coupling a Christian vision of resurrection with humanexclusion from the cyclical returnof the sun. Three versions of imitation have emerged from this study-versions, not hard and fast categorieswith immutable boundaries-following, imitation, and emulation. Following, or nontransformative imitation, is the gatheringor borrowing of phrases,sentences,passages which amountsto a transcription the model(s) into the text. Followof includes Vida's insertion of random Virgilian tags into his poems ing and Macrobius'appropriationof Seneca'sEpistulaemorales A cer84. tain amount of transformingoccurs by virtue of inclusion in a new without changing a word is very context, and complete transcription rare indeed. Consequentlyone occasionallyhas difficulty distinguishis ing following from imitation, in which the note of transformation In an imitation the differencesbetwee text and model are at strong. least as pronounced as the resemblances, in Milton's procession of as in Lycidas.Critical reflection on or correction of the model speakers imidistinguishesemulation or eristicimitation from (transformative) tation, and this criticism is often grounded in an awarenessof the historicaldistancebetween presentand past, as in Milton's comparison of Lycidas' and the sun's resurrection.
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY